Who is this strange and confused man to tell others that their ideas offer "no positive exposition".. whatever that means. Is he in any position to decide if the thoughts of another are good or bad? The only thing I see him doing is throw the word "new age" and "spiritual" around a bunch of times, and then ranting about it based on various false assumptions. What does "spiritual" and "new age" really mean? It appears as if the writer has absolutely no clue about this at all, and thus concludes that it must be bad.

So is he really saying, that one must either be a complete materialist, or that one must believe in Christianity or a similar religion and be a God-fearing being? I say again, who is this man to tell others what they have to be? He should research what "new age" and "spiritual" really means, instead of writing a rant based on his false world of assumptions, where everyone sees these things in the exact bad light as the author does.

The world is not black and white. It does not consist of "fear god" or "pray to materials". Both of those are in my opinion ultimately incorrect points of view, and whether the author likes it or not, he will have to deal with it.

There is a giant logical fallacy in this article, which can be summed up as following "There exists only A and B. The alphabet does not have other letters, and there are no other forms of language. Anyone who does not completely choose for either A or B is unwilling to take any position at all, and for some reason these people really annoy me, because I like to believe that the entire universe is confined to only having the options A and B".